Moumita Maiti (Roy) And ORS. v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

20.04.2026 Sl. No. 44 Ct. No.14 tkm

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P.A. No. 12803 of 2025 Moumita Maiti (Roy) & Ors.

Versus

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Anjan Bhattacharya, (VC) Ms. Anita Shaw Ms. Seema Thakur ...for the Petitioners Mr. Kamal Mishra ... for the DPSC, Purba Medinipur Mr. Bipin Ghosh Mr. Manish Biswas ... for the State 1.

By the present writ petition, the petitioners seek direction upon the respondent authorities particularly the District Primary School Council to furnish the details of information sought for by the petitioners in their application seeking information under the Right to Information Act (In short RTI Act) 2005.

2.

The petitioners contend that they have participated in recruitment process of 2009 conducted by the Purba Medinipur District Primary School Council. The examination was held on 20th June 2010 but the result and appointments were delayed and finally published in the year 2014. The respondent authorities fixed specific categorywise cut-off marks for the written examination. However, several candidates including one Smt. Tanusree Jana was allegedly appointed

despite securing the marks below the prescribed cutoff in Madhyamik. The information was confirmed through an RTI reply. Despite submission of several representations and seeking records under the RTI Act, the respondents failed to provide the required data. A previous writ petition being WPA 8221 of 2025 was filed which was dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file afresh. Hence, this writ petition.

3.

Mr. Anjan Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing through virtual mode, for the petitioners, submit that there has been gross irregularities in the process of recruitment. The persons with lesser marks have been given appointment. Information under the RTI Act was sought for. However, details were not furnished by the District Primary School Council, Purba Medinipur. He seeks for consideration of the representation of the petitioners namely Annexure-P3 to the petition. 4.

Mr. Bipin Ghosh, learned advocate for the State submits that the representation does not have any date. The petitioners seek for details of information under the RTI Act which is not sustainable in a writ proceedings. He seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. 5.

Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the District Primary School Council, Purba Medinipur also submits that the information has been sought for after passage of considerable period of time. The prayer seeking for information is to be pressed in an appeal under the RTI Act and not before the writ court.

6.

There cannot be any quarrel that the grievance of the petitioners is of non-furnishing of detailed information by the authority concerned. Prayer has been made seeking direction upon the authorities for furnishing details of information sought for by the petitioners in their application seeking information under the RTI Act 2005. Thus, precisely the petitioners are aggrieved by an information which was sought under section 6 of the RTI Act 2005. The RTI Act provides for filing an appeal in case of such grievance. In view of the above, the writ petition falls short of merit.

7.

Accordingly, the Writ petition being WPA 12803 of 2025 stands dismissed.

8.

There shall be no order as to costs.

9.

All concerned parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

10. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of all necessary legal formalities.

(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)